Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/01708/OP LAND OPPOSITE HEATH FARM, BRIARY LANE, ROYSTON, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Erection of up to 84 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) following demolition of No. 24 Echo Hill with all matters reserved save for access.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 25/01708/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation manager.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 4 minutes 59 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that written updates on matters relating to application 25/01708/OP had been published as a supplementary document.

 

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 25/01708/OP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·             This application was similar, but not identical to the previous applications submitted at this site in 2019 and 2021.

·             Policy changes since the previous applications included the adoption of a new Local Plan, alterations to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the failure to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

·             The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) had assessed the application independently and felt that it did not alleviate their concerns on flood risk elsewhere. Their response had been considered as part of the application.

·             The titled balance was engaged due to the delivery of housing from the application. However, the harms identified in the application outweighed the benefits of this.

 

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that the harms arising from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits delivered by the development as detailed in the report.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Claire Swarbrick to speak against the application. Ms Swarbrick thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             They represented over 250 households and residents who had made objections to the proposed development.

·             Residents of Echo Hill, specifically those living at numbers 23 and 25 would be significantly affected by the proposed access, and the prospect of this had caused uncertainty and stress to nearby residents.

·             They supported the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report of the Senior Planning Officer.

·             The site was situated in a valuable landscape, and the application would significantly harm its rural character, public footpaths, the local nature reserve and the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Therfield Heath.

·             Existing homes at low elevations would be negatively affected by the proposed dwellings as they would be built at higher elevations.

·             Their Landscape Consultant Report confirmed that development would cause substantial harms and recommended refusal based on the visual and landscape impact.

·             The developer was recently refused planning permission for a similar development in Leicestershire, which the Planning Inspectorate had upheld after an appeal.

·             The developer had formally written to residents at numbers 23 and 25 of Echo Hill in 2020 to acknowledge the impacts that the development would have on them during construction and after completion.

·             Proposed access roads around the site would be unsuitable as technical data from their consultant proved that they would not meet safe access standards.

·             The Highways Authority had rejected the application due to poor access and its unsustainable location.

·             The site failed to conform to the Flood Risk Policy in the NPPF, and they supported the response provided by the LLFA.

·             They were concerned that Natural England would not put the necessary measures in place to protect the SSSI.

·             The proposed mitigation was not adequate for a site within 60 metres of an SSSI and the 400-metre rule for special protection areas should apply.

·             A site adjacent to an SSSI which failed to deliver on-site Biodiversity Net Gain should be refused.

·             The Conservators of Therfield Heath and Greens had objected to the application and more weight should be given to their response.

·             Their Ecologist had raised concerns on the surveys undertaken and stated that the application was situated in the worst possible location with regards to impacting the SSSI.

·             The Council should ensure the protection of the SSSI in the future.

·             It was disappointing to be discussing another application at this site.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

·             Councillor Val Bryant

·             Councillor Louise Peace

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·             There were more objections on this application than the last application considered in 2021, despite policy changes since then. Therefore, the recommendation to refuse permission should be supported.

·             Despite the tilted balance, there was a comprehensive report which evidenced why the application should be refused permission.

·             After due consideration on the harms and benefits, the application should be refused permission.

·             It was clear from the consultee responses that the application should be refused permission, and it was sad to see the time that had been spent by those that had considered this application.

 

Having been proposed and second and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/01708/OP be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation manager.

Supporting documents: